Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Redmayne-Bentley LLP

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Redmayne-Bentley LLP failed to complete investment purchases in a timely manner, causing him to miss out on investment growth. Mr A requested to purchase Tesla shares and leveraged Tesla ETNs on 1 July 2024, but RB advised that an expired Web-8Ben form and a complex instrument form were required before trading could proceed. The required forms were obtained and Mr A was informed he could trade on 5 July 2024, but he did not place any trades at that time, citing unfavourable prices. The ombudsman found that both forms were required by RB's terms and conditions and regulations, were processed within reasonable timeframes, and that Mr A could not have completed the purchases on 1 July 2024 regardless. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that both the Web-8Ben and complex instrument forms were required by RB's terms and conditions and applicable regulations. The forms were not in place on 1 July 2024, so Mr A could not have completed the purchases on that date regardless. The processing timeline from 1-5 July 2024 was reasonable and not unduly delayed. The fact that other firms might use electronic systems or notify customers of form expiry does not mean RB acted unfairly. Importantly, once Mr A had the ability to purchase on 5 July 2024, he took no action, undermining his claim for compensation based on a 1 July purchase price.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website